Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Touchdown Jesus! - Vessels of Grace and Channels of Power

My blog title is grammatically correct. Jesus did not get a touchdown, that was the nickname a 62 foot tall, upper torso sculpture, of Jesus was given. The sculpture, off I-75 in southern Ohio, was struck by lightening and burned to the ground. HERE is the Yahoo News story.

I an not going to segue into some prophetic sign of how the End Times are upon is. Much more interesting, and relevant, are the comments on the article by some 3,500+ readers.

Here is one by Joshua - "God and Jesus was just made up in a book too. Same with Lucifer and every other angel. Anyone who says Zues is just made up cant prove it. Nor can anyone prove Jesus or God is too. Anyone can write a book and make up some higher being and some poor fools will buy into it."

This is one of my favorites from What122: "I wonder if their insurance will cover it, or will the insurance company say it was an act of God?"

One commenter characterizes Christianity by using the Bible against itself. Ben: "Well, Jesus did warn us of false profits. It seems obvious to me that he was referring to himself."

Susan presents a more fundamental Christian viewpoint: "Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:  This would include an "image" or "likeness" of Jesus Christ according to scripture."

And one more regarding the use of $250,000 to build the now fried Jesus statue from Exhort: "To all those that say this was a waste of money - what have you done with your money?"

My take is that a lightening rod would have been a good investment for such a large and costly sculpture. Does this act of nature or God have any spiritual significance? I don't know.

Does God have an opinion about sculptures on, or in churches? Yes - but only if they themselves are idols. As a student of music and fine art, I have studied hundreds of religious works of art. Even as a Protestant, I have seen quite a few stained glass windows in my day. In Europe, the Caribbean, South America and the US, the likenesses of Jesus, Mary, the Apostles and other Bible characters are depicted in translucent and iridized glass. Some of them are stunning!

I do believe that the manicured American church has a problem idolizing other things: pastors, worship leaders, Mary, the Apostle Paul, the traditions of man, and even the Bible as if it is somehow God in print.

Symbols are good. The statue of Liberty and the American flag, are a good examples. Symbolism is deeply rooted in Christianity: oil, salt, wine, bread, blood, and the cross; with, or without a suffering Jesus, are all symbols meant to remind us of the different aspects of the charcter of God.

Do I think that a quarter of a million could have been better spent? If it was God's choice, no. If not, yes. The leadership of that church is accountable to God, and my opinion is too.

I have a heart for lots of things: the poor, missions, and youth, just to name a few. If I had a 1/4 mil, I would want to spend it on those things. However; if I don't hear from God, I wouldn't know how to spend it. I have lots of ideas on local ministry, but without God's revelation, it doesn't matter. Because I happen to think that my ideas are so cool, here are a few:

- Buy a snowplow so that your church could take care of widows, disabled and elderly folks driveways. And you could get the church lot done too. Or lawn mowers if you live in the deep south.
- Buy a used limo and pick-up new kids up for youth group.
- Sponser a couple of yearly mission trips to serve the truly poor.
- Put your own Bibles in the local hotels.
- Hire a lost sheep pastor for go after the 1 and leave the 99. (nearly 40% of all Christians do not fellowship weekly)
- Have free community dinners once a month.
- The news says that the sculpture will be resurrected. I wouldn't do it.

As born again Christians we need to become vessels of grace and channels of God's power. How would you do it?

It appears there is a video too.

26 comments:

Michelle said...

I am with the graven image lady. Symbols are important but I never want my mother-in-law telling my child that is a picture of Jesus in the front of their church. I believe it's too easy in our depraved minds to worhsip the image than the one true God. I know too many people that would be just appalled if something or someone did something to their little Jesus figurine...it's just glass and people lose that somewhere. People worship these "things" without even realizing it becaue they do it in the name of Christ.

Now this situation is just a total waste of money. I'm with you, there are too many ways to serve others in this world to waste "God's" money on this. (But, I'm cynincal like that.)

photogr said...

This happening was fairly close to our home in Cincinnati. To see it in person is a bit impressive. I don't know the implications of it bordering on being an idol or an item of worship though.

I don't go to that church but it is up to them on how they want to represent Jesus. The cost is prohibitive and could have put the money to better use I would think.

Who are we to judge other's actions?

David said...

@ Mechelle - I know what you mean. But sometimes a crucifix get's people thinking abut how terrible that crucifixion was. Without a relationship with God, it is all idolatry.

@Larry - I hope that I was not perceived as being judgmental. I said if it was God, cool. Personally, I feel that the money might be used for better purposes. But I also believe that God speaks to pastors in mega-churches too.

photogr said...

David:

I did not perceive you as judgemental. I have mixed feelings on that statue. Granted the money could have been put to better use.

Perhaps there was a message in that fire started by lightening.

GCT said...

"My take is that a lightening rod would have been a good investment for such a large and costly sculpture."

And yet you reject science.

"Does God have an opinion about sculptures on, or in churches? Yes - but only if they themselves are idols."

Ah, but that law was supposedly fulfilled (whatever that means). I thought you Xians weren't held to the antiquated OT laws.

David said...

@GCT - I do not reject science, just the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Global Warming as fact.

I actually enjoy that law of gravity - well except when I fall.

Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law. We now worship Him. Anything that aids worship of God is not an idol.

Christians have tried to strip away any symbols of religion - except for the cross. According your interpretation of the law, even that would be wrong.

Worship of a non-living Jesus is idol worship.

GCT said...

David,
Actually, you do reject science, vast swathes of it. By rejecting the fact and theory of evolution (and remember, a scientific theory is a well supported set of facts and explanations for those facts) and global warming (both of which are overwhelmingly supported in the peer reviewed literature and by experts in the field), you're rejecting all the concilliatory efforts from vast parts of science that come together to make up these theories. That's a whole lot of science rejection.

Further, you're really claiming that the vast majority of scientists are either incompetent at their jobs or are lying.

"Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law."

Which you claim means that you don't follow the OT law. I don't see a prohibition of graven images in the NT, so there should be no issue with worshipping them...or does "fulfillment" (again, whatever that actually means) only count when it's stuff that you don't want to do, like own up to the laws and regulations making slavery legal and accepted?

photogr said...

That reminds me (scientifically speaking) I have to check our lightening rod on our house to be sure it is still grounded.

I would imagine the electrical charge this statue took from lightening that a lightening rod may well have been insignificant as a preventative option to a fire considering the materials used to make this statue.I am surprised for $250,000.00 that it wasn't made from stone.

David said...

@GCT - I prefer science based on facts. Love organic chemistry, biology, physics and math. But i am not buying a conclusion that cannot be proved, regardless of how plausible you think that theory and facts are. I think that scientists are sincere - I just don't agree with their conclusion of the facts. In terms of global warming, the Ice Age already ended once before man walked the earth.

Evolution, no one knows how it all started if we discount creation.

There is plausible and factual evidence on both sides. I'll leave it at that.

Idolatry is mentioned about 100 times in the new testament.

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

The OT is superseded by the NT. There is nothing that Jesus proclaimed in the new covenant this is is at issue. He did not specifically address all that laws of the OT, but said that He came to fulfill them.

Worship of anything other than Jesus (God) is sin.

So, no, I don't see the conflict here.

In terms of slavery, as we've discussed before, it is unloving, and therefore; not permissible to own another human being. That is not the same as the Greek word doulos, which means bond servant. it is in serving others with our free will, that we show the world that God's love is real.

GCT said...

David,
"I prefer science based on facts."

Describes the theory of evolution to a T, considering the fact of common descent.

"But i am not buying a conclusion that cannot be proved, regardless of how plausible you think that theory and facts are."

Then, you don't actually buy gravity.

"I think that scientists are sincere - I just don't agree with their conclusion of the facts."

Then, you think them incompetent.

"In terms of global warming, the Ice Age already ended once before man walked the earth."

Again, you think them incompetent. What do you actually base your positions on? What actual studies, what actual data do you use to disregard the reams of data and studies for both evolution and global climate change?

"Evolution, no one knows how it all started if we discount creation."

Irrelevant and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. This is also nothing more than a god of the gaps. What will you do as your gaps continue to shrink?

"There is plausible and factual evidence on both sides. I'll leave it at that."

Factually incorrect. There is no factual evidence for creationism.

"Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Ah, but if the OT is superseded, then idolatry is not wrong anymore. As you keep saying, the law is "fulfilled" which I can only think means that you don't have to follow it when you don't agree with it.

"In terms of slavery, as we've discussed before, it is unloving, and therefore; not permissible to own another human being."

Again, you completely miss the point. You're engaging in ad hoc reasoning and special pleading. When the OT rules suit you, you claim they are still binding. When they don't, you claim they are "fulfilled."

photogr said...

The theory of evolution is based on conclusions, assumptions, and deductions. Even Darwin on his death bed concluded he wasn't sure on the evolutionary principle he fostered.

Even scientist today have a hard time coming up with positive facts to conclude that evolution is the actual answer for our beginning. Much of their theories and conclusions are speculation based on what they have as posible evidence but much of the evidence needed to prove positive has eluded them.

Science still don't know where we came from over 6,000 years ago and No we did not evolve from apes even though our DNA is similar.

So there is a missing link that yet has to be discovered. Perhaps what is written in Genesis is the only evidence of our beginning no matter how hard it is for some to believe

David said...

@GCT - I am still not convinced by the science behind the theory. I don't see DNA or fossil evidence in the same light that you do. We'll have to disagree.

You make up anything that you want about the OT law. The NT covers this clearly. Mark 12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

If you look in the Greek, you'll see that there is no room for idols in the phrase, "all your strength."

Thanks for commenting.

GCT said...

photogr,
Whoever told you that Darwin recanted was lying to you.

Evolution is based on science and the scientific method, which is the only method we have for figuring out how the world works. I'm all ears if you have a different and better method...

"Even scientist today have a hard time coming up with positive facts to conclude that evolution is the actual answer for our beginning."

Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis, which is the study of how life began. If you want positive evidence for evolution, there's literally reams and volumes of it, but you can start here.

"Science still don't know where we came from over 6,000 years ago and No we did not evolve from apes even though our DNA is similar."

Actually, we do know, and we know that we share a common ancestor with apes. We've tracked down the chromosomal fusion event: when, where, what, etc. This is not in dispute by anyone except those who unscientifically reject it in favor of their religious beliefs.

"So there is a missing link that yet has to be discovered."

It has been discovered, multiple times, in multiple ancestral lines, with multiple studies focusing on multiple fields of scientific study. Ever heard of Tiktallik, whale ancestry, horse ancestry, or the scads of hominid fossils we have?

"Perhaps what is written in Genesis is the only evidence of our beginning no matter how hard it is for some to believe"

Why Genesis instead of any other religious myth? What positive evidence do you have that Genesis is correct? All the evidence we have is that the Earth is older than 6000 years - we even have trees that are older than that!

GCT said...

David,
"I am still not convinced by the science behind the theory."

Why not? What is it that you disagree with and why?

"You make up anything that you want about the OT law."

What part am I making up? Does the OT not have laws concerning how to take and hold slaves, for instance?

"If you look in the Greek, you'll see that there is no room for idols in the phrase, "all your strength.""

I'm sorry, but how do you get that? That's your specific interpretation, which you can no more prove is right than anything else. I don't see anything in that phrase that says, "Do not worship idols."

photogr said...

GCT:

"Even Darwin on his death bed concluded he wasn't sure on the evolutionary principle he fostered".
There is a difference on what I said and what you assumed I said.

"What positive evidence do you have that Genesis is correct? All the evidence we have is that the Earth is older than 6000 years - we even have trees that are older than that!"

Is there any evidence that Genesis is not correct?

I am quite aware that the earth is billions of years old and in fact I will conceed that an evolutionary process probably did happen for early life forms. My theory ( and that is only a theory, not fact) is that some thing or some body sparked the evoluntionary process in that time frame for the early life forms. Perhaps God?

Now Genesis says God created the earth in 6 days as that statement is interpretated in scriptures. I would have to guess His 6 days are quite a bit shorter or longer in our terms of a day. Perhaps billions of years for 6 days. Again this is only speculation of a possible theory on my part.

You have to agree the we as human beings only popped onto the scene about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. But yet God created the Garden of Eden about 6000 years ago ( I am guessing) so this may be the position where by Adam and Eve were created in this garden by a God as possibly a chosen people.

If you read Genesis, it doesn't say there was no humans around when he created the Garden of Eden so there may well have been other humans. If you think about it, There may well have been other humans in that area out side of the Garden of Eden in those times when Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden.Here again we have no positive clue on a time frame.

Thinking about it, we have to understand when God revealed to the author ( Moses) of Genesis, He might had to explain to some one with out a lot of technical or advanced knowledge what was going on thus some of the parables and paraphrases.

Can you imagine what a space craft or a vessel that flew through the air might have looked to some one in those days? They would not be able to explain what they saw.

Again these are just theories, not facts but do lend some credence to the possibility in the absence of factual evidence.

AS I have said before, We can debate till we are both blue in the face for our ideaologies but we will never agree. Still your thoughts do give a different view.

GCT said...

Photogr,
"There is a difference on what I said and what you assumed I said."

True, although your comment is rather innocuous, don't you think? He was as sure of the science as any scientist is sure of any theory. To make matters even worse for you, we know quite a bit more about it than Darwin ever did and we are more convinced than ever.

"Is there any evidence that Genesis is not correct?"

Yes, tons. Even if there weren't, is that how you want to measure the rightness or wrongness of something? Is there evidence that the big bang is not correct? Is there evidence that other creation theories are not correct? If something has to be disproven before you'll reject it, doesn't that mean you should believe in more stories than just Genesis, or are you engaging in special pleading and god of the gaps?

"My theory ( and that is only a theory, not fact) is that some thing or some body sparked the evoluntionary process in that time frame for the early life forms. Perhaps God?"

Any evidence for that? Any evidence that it wasn't Zeus or Thor but was Yahweh? Lastly, once again you're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

"Now Genesis says God created the earth in 6 days as that statement is interpretated in scriptures."

It also gets the order all wrong. Also, the idea that "days" actually means some series of years is a modern apologetic that comes from trying to re-interpret the Bible to fit the physical evidence. It's quite a stretch.

"You have to agree the we as human beings only popped onto the scene about 6000 to 10,000 years ago."

You're only off by a couple orders of magnitude. Homo Sapiens appeared about 400,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared about 130,000 years ago. Where did you get the idea that it was 6000 to 10000 years ago?

"If you read Genesis, it doesn't say there was no humans around when he created the Garden of Eden so there may well have been other humans."

This doesn't follow from the story.

"Thinking about it, we have to understand when God revealed to the author ( Moses) of Genesis, He might had to explain to some one with out a lot of technical or advanced knowledge what was going on thus some of the parables and paraphrases."

Moses didn't write Genesis. Secondly, are we to believe that Moses had only one time frame of reference called a "day" and couldn't understand the concept of years?

"Again these are just theories, not facts but do lend some credence to the possibility in the absence of factual evidence."

No, sorry, but your wild guesses do not lend credence to the Bible.

"AS I have said before, We can debate till we are both blue in the face for our ideaologies but we will never agree."

It should not be that way. I have evidence on my side, you have belief. Why should this even be a debate?

photogr said...

GCT:

"Moses didn't write Genesis. Secondly, are we to believe that Moses had only one time frame of reference called a "day" and couldn't understand the concept of years?"

According to my research, Moses is stated as the author of Genesis "by tradition" about 1450 to 1410 BC.


"You're only off by a couple orders of magnitude. Homo Sapiens appeared about 400,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared about 130,000 years ago. Where did you get the idea that it was 6000 to 10000 years ago?"

Are you talking about the cave men or Homo Erectus? Definitely a different spieces all together.

It has been stated that human beings as we know them now only appeared about 10,000 years ago. It was back then that the "Cave Men" spieces were a dying breed due to the inability to adapt. Perhaps you can provide some reference for me to to research your claims.

"This doesn't follow from the story."

Yes it does. If you were to read Genesis up through Cain and Able, it does indicate there might be other people around in that region during these times. Other wise why would God put the mark on Cain so that no one would kill him if there were no one around but Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. I also understand that abel had a wife. Where did she come from? Cain later had a wife and she bore him children. Where did that wife come from? Certainly not form the Garden of Eden.

GCT said...

photogr,
"According to my research, Moses is stated as the author of Genesis "by tradition" about 1450 to 1410 BC."

Moses was always held as the author of Genesis until recently when more critical scholarship overturned this idea. How can we even be sure Moses existed considering that the Exodus never happened nor the conquest of Canaan, etc.?

"Are you talking about the cave men or Homo Erectus? Definitely a different spieces all together."

Our species is Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Homo Erectus is a different species which appeared 2 million years ago.

"It has been stated that human beings as we know them now only appeared about 10,000 years ago. It was back then that the "Cave Men" spieces were a dying breed due to the inability to adapt. Perhaps you can provide some reference for me to to research your claims."

Who is stating that modern humans appeared 10,000 years ago and what is the context of that?

And, links: Washington State or Talk origins

"Yes it does. If you were to read Genesis up through Cain and Able, it does indicate there might be other people around in that region during these times."

Then you're asserting that god did not create all humans. This is a rather interesting assertion, considering that god is supposedly the creator of all. Are these non-god created people in possession of souls? Do they go to hell or heaven after death? Why would god create animals that already existed? But, it still doesn't add up. Genesis is the story of how everything got here and how god did it. Now, you're trying to save it by claiming that it's not at all descriptive of what actually happened?

Now, I too have wondered where all those other people came from. The accepted Xian answer is that they are all descendants of Adam and Eve and that much time passes between expulsion from the garden and the rest of the events described...enough for many people to have spawned many generations. Really, it simply shows the ridiculous nature of the book of Genesis.

photogr said...

GCT:

Quite the contrary. We are told that God did create the earth, animals, and humans before He created Adam, Eve, and the Garden. Adam and Eve were possibly His chosen children that sinned I would have to speculate.

"The accepted Xian answer is that they are all descendants of Adam and Eve and that much time passes between expulsion from the garden and the rest of the events."

This is speculation too.

Lets look at somethings in a scientific manner.

We have all heard of Jonah and the big fish story in the bible and that is a questionable occurence. It possibly may have been a submarine which Jonah could not have comprehended back in those times.

We have read of times that God or some one was flying aound in vessels with fire and smoke as it was described in the bible. could it be concievable that thses were in fact powered air craft of some sorts.

In Ezekiel chapters 1 and 2 we read of s strange vessel acending from the heavens with a description that could easily be taken as a space craft or powered air craft of sorts. In another part of the bible a prophet is taken aloft in a craft where he was shown the Earth was round from a rather high vantage point.

In Egypt during the time of the Pharaohs we find paintings or scribes on the walls displaying vessels which resemble flying craft,one actually resembles a modern day helecopter. In one find there was a small model of what apears to be a plane in configuration. A scientist took this model and scaled it up to a small Rc plane and it flew using the exact design from the golden model. Not to mention carvings found in South America of what appears to be some sort of a person in a flying device.

For the sake of being netrual, would this suggest proof of extra terrestial travelers visiting earth thousands of years ago possibly to shape or change the course of human kind? We would have to consider those travelers to be of a higher intellect or diety? Do you believe that was possible back then? Do you think a God or diety could have influenced the course of our destiny through these described vessels?

We are not talking little green men is a flying saucer but real persons or dieties. The evidence is there. Do you believe it is possible? Then it may well be concieveable that God or something played a large part in creation and evolution. Just that mankind had a hard time describing what he was seeing or being told in those times.

This is not fact but speculation based on what has been discovered in a scientific way.

I will review your links as you suggested.

photogr said...

GCT:

Suggested links I viewed.

What you are refering to is the Cro Magnon man that existed up to 10k years ago. They were more robust. Although quite similar they had larger brains and were diverse but not the actual modern man as we know them to date as the article did state.

There fore my theory of humans as we are to date still stands on the time frame.

Also the concept that a superior being did have a hand in creating the modern man may have some credence.

It is highly plausable that we are decendants of a highly developed civilization from the heavens and beyond created by their seeds in their image. And who or what that might be?

For lack of a better comprehension, perhaps a god or the God most Christians worship.

GCT said...

photogr,
"Lets look at somethings in a scientific manner."

Yes, let's. What evidence do you have for any of your conjecture?

"It possibly may have been a submarine which Jonah could not have comprehended back in those times."

So, where did this submarine come from? Was it aliens, time travelers, or did your god decide to create submarines instead of simply using his omnipotence power? Please let me know what it is that you're arguing for.

"Do you think a God or diety could have influenced the course of our destiny through these described vessels?"

Is it possible? Yes, it's possible in the same way that the existence of unicorns is possible. Is it supported? No. Does it make sense? No.

"What you are refering to is the Cro Magnon man that existed up to 10k years ago."

No, I'm not, and you either didn't read very well or didn't understand what you read. Homo sapiens sapiens are modern humans and have been around for more than 130,000 years.

"Although quite similar they had larger brains and were diverse but not the actual modern man as we know them to date as the article did state."

What it states is that there have been changes since the fossils we've found that are 10,000 years old. There have also been changes from people who lived 5,000 years ago. There have also been changes from people who lived only 1,000 years ago. This is due to evolution. The main point, however, is that our species comes onto the scene a lot more than 10,000 years ago.

"There fore my theory of humans as we are to date still stands on the time frame."

No, it does not. The timeframe plainly indicates that modern humans have been around for 130,000 years.

"Also the concept that a superior being did have a hand in creating the modern man may have some credence."

It would have credence if there were some evidence for it. As it stands, however, it has about as much credence as claiming that rainbows come from leprechauns showing us where their gold is.

"It is highly plausable that we are decendants of a highly developed civilization from the heavens and beyond created by their seeds in their image."

Highly plausible? Before something can be "highly plausible" you need some evidence. Until then, it's no more plausible than the "theory" that we came from freak genetic experiments run by unicorns.

"For lack of a better comprehension, perhaps a god or the God most Christians worship."

So, which is it? A race of highly advanced critters that you claim is highly plausible, or the omni-max and contradictory god of Xianity?

GCT said...

photogr,
"Lets look at somethings in a scientific manner."

Yes, let's. What evidence do you have for any of your conjecture?

"It possibly may have been a submarine which Jonah could not have comprehended back in those times."

So, where did this submarine come from? Was it aliens, time travelers, or did your god decide to create submarines instead of simply using his omnipotence power? Please let me know what it is that you're arguing for.

"Do you think a God or diety could have influenced the course of our destiny through these described vessels?"

Is it possible? Yes, it's possible in the same way that the existence of unicorns is possible. Is it supported? No. Does it make sense? No.

"What you are refering to is the Cro Magnon man that existed up to 10k years ago."

No, I'm not, and you either didn't read very well or didn't understand what you read. Homo sapiens sapiens are modern humans and have been around for more than 130,000 years.

"Although quite similar they had larger brains and were diverse but not the actual modern man as we know them to date as the article did state."

What it states is that there have been changes since the fossils we've found that are 10,000 years old. There have also been changes from people who lived 5,000 years ago. There have also been changes from people who lived only 1,000 years ago. This is due to evolution. The main point, however, is that our species comes onto the scene a lot more than 10,000 years ago.

"There fore my theory of humans as we are to date still stands on the time frame."

No, it does not. The timeframe plainly indicates that modern humans have been around for 130,000 years.

"Also the concept that a superior being did have a hand in creating the modern man may have some credence."

It would have credence if there were some evidence for it. As it stands, however, it has about as much credence as claiming that rainbows come from leprechauns showing us where their gold is.

"It is highly plausable that we are decendants of a highly developed civilization from the heavens and beyond created by their seeds in their image."

Highly plausible? Before something can be "highly plausible" you need some evidence. Until then, it's no more plausible than the "theory" that we came from freak genetic experiments run by unicorns.

"For lack of a better comprehension, perhaps a god or the God most Christians worship."

So, which is it? A race of highly advanced critters that you claim is highly plausible, or the omni-max and contradictory god of Xianity?

photogr said...

GCT:

Exactly my point.

GCT said...

What's exactly your point? I'm asking you which contradictory and outlandish point your trying to make. My point is that the evidence points to a very specific and supported conclusion, that of evolution. You're putting forth multiple outlandish ideas that contradict one another, claiming they are supported somehow, and then you claim that it's somehow your point when I ask which contradictory idea you're actually proposing? I've got to say, this is rather bizarre.

photogr said...

GCT:

What ever I propose to you seems outlandish to you. What ever you propose to me seems out landish to me. That is the point I am trying to convey.

Neither one of us do really know what is the truth even though we might suggest our assumptions are fact. We only conclude it is a fact because others have stated that or we have read it some where.

I cannot ever change your ideaology neither can you ever change mine no matter how much fact we may present.

With that in mind, I consider us to be blogging friends but with different perspectives.

Take care

GCT said...

Photogr,
"What ever I propose to you seems outlandish to you. What ever you propose to me seems out landish to me. That is the point I am trying to convey."

The key point that you aren't getting though is that evidence counts.

Who won the last Superbowl? I think we would both agree that it was the Denver Broncos, right? Wait, you don't agree, and you think that my claiming it was Denver is outlandish? Why?

The reason is that you have evidence that it wasn't the Broncos while I don't have any evidence to support my claims. Is it possible that the Broncos all dressed up like the Saints and fooled us all into thinking that another team had won? Theoretically, it might be possible, right, but is it plausible? No, of coure not, because the weight of the evidence is well and truly against it.

To relate this back to our discussion, you are giving me scenarios that do not agree with our physical evidence. There's only one scenario that best agrees with all the available evidence, and that is evolution. The reason you keep wanting to include god is because of your belief and despite the evidence. This is why we are at an impasse.

"Neither one of us do really know what is the truth even though we might suggest our assumptions are fact."

We will never know anything to 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean that anything goes.

"We only conclude it is a fact because others have stated that or we have read it some where."

Or because we've seen the physical evidence and we realize that the vast majority of scientists are not either incompetent or lying to us.

"I cannot ever change your ideaology neither can you ever change mine no matter how much fact we may present."

This is really sad. You can change my mind if you actually present facts. Presenting assertions masquerading as facts won't cut it though. And, I find it sad that you claim your mind can't be changed no matter how contrary it is to the physical world around you.

"With that in mind, I consider us to be blogging friends but with different perspectives."

I can agree with that.

Related Posts with Thumbnails